The U.S. Supreme Courtheard oral argumenton Oct. 13 , 2021 , in the case ofDzokhar Tsarnaev , the lone surviving Boston Marathon hero . While much of thenews coverage has focused on whether the court will preserve the expiry penaltyfor Tsarnaev , the case also represent a key query for this era : Is it possible to discover unbiased citizen toserve on a juryin high - profile case during an age of omnipresent societal spiritualist ?
This aspect of the case focuses on the " voir dire " process , which employs a French terminal figure that more or less translate to " verbalise the truth . " Voir dire go on prior to the start of trial run , when lawyers or the judge , depending on the jurisdiction , head prospective jurors to determine whether they harbor any kind of bias or prejudice against one of the party .
Tsarnaev was charge with 30 countsrelated to the bombardment of the endurance contest . The caseful hadreceived far-flung attention , including on-line comment about the defendant and picture of himcarrying a bomb - ladened knapsack to the close line . Voir dire in his case was blanket , lasting 21 days and imply 1,373 prospective jurors , each of whom fill in a 28 - page questionnaire .
At some full point during voir dire , Tsarnaev ’s lawyer need the judge to demand a two - part question to prospective jurors . First , whether they had seen media coverage of the case , and 2d , what specifically they had seen . The justice asked the first part of the inquiry , but not the 2d .
‘Does Not Suffice’
Tsarnaev ’s attorney appeal the death penalty , saying in part that the trial evaluator should have asked what medium coverage jurors had get wind or read about the case so as to see a fair panel .
The First Circuit Court of Appealsfound shift with the justice , say that ask the juryman " only whether they had read anything that might regulate their opinion ' does not do , " because that exclusive question does not raise " what , if anything , they have learned . " During the oral argument at the Supreme Court , Justice Sonia Sotomayor take note that"there was a whole caboodle of different publicity here . "
It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide who was correct .
Since this appeal only refer to thedeath penalty sentence , Tsarnaev ’s guilty verdict and life history without password sentence rest in spot .
The dilemma facing the Supreme Court is how normative they require the voir dire summons to be . It could egress an view requiring low court of justice to ask juryman more get across questions about their exposure to media accounts in gamey - visibility case .
Some believe that visitation Book of Judges should be gift a meter of tractableness and autonomy in how they conduct voir dire . Others need the Supreme Court to step in and spell out exactly how voir dire should be conducted .
Those favoring this latter approach point out that Tsarnaev was face a death sentence andmade four requests for a modification of venueto move the face from Boston because , his lawyer argued , it would be out of the question to get indifferent juror in the local field . As ascholar of felonious practice of law and juries , I believe a strong statement could be made that any run judge in this spot should take additional pace to uncover prejudice in prospective juryman .
Those on the other side believe that requiring more question will unduly lengthen the voir dire process and trench on jurywoman privacy . Despite these misgiving , courts around the country are increasingly questioning jurywoman abouttopics like societal media and their usage of the net .
Can’t Unplug a Juror
The issue confronting the Supreme Court here is part of a large treatment about whether courts in the digital eld can find nonsubjective jurors .
find unbiased juror in the pre - digital age , even in high - profile case , was not too unmanageable . Once choose , jurywoman need to maintain that unbiased statusand were told not to discuss the case with anyone and to avoid radio receiver , idiot box and newspaper . If the case involved the death penalty , jurors might besequestered .
Today , that same approach wo n’t work .
Few jurywoman can go eight hours , much less a whole week , without using their smartphone or social media . Many people share aspects of their life-time with others in real clip through societal media , which is incompatible with jury inspection and repair . In fact , being a juror do their social media mail service more interesting to others .
In Tsarnaev ’s subject , the lawcourt of appeals ' public opinion referencedjuror # 138 , who had a run for dialogue about the case on Facebook with his friends .
Today ’s jurors also have much more information available to them . Where news report about a crime or the defendant would have been difficult to discover or access previously , they are now just a click away . This information does not evaporate when out of the news rhythm ; it remains online and approachable . In fact , often the selective information is campaign to the juror or shows up in their newsfeed .
Dealing With the Connected Juror
judge across the country take a diversity of approaching to battle the disconfirming influences of the digital age on the jury .
Attorneys and judges will ask potential jurors inquiry . In addition , lawyer will investigate jurors to learn what they make out about the typesetter’s case . This happens both in the courtroom atvoir dire and online , where attorneys research the juryman ’s digital footmark to include social media posts . The question of how far to crowbar during voir dire is the main issue of concern in Tsarnaev ’s guinea pig .
Once chosen , jurors are told to follow the court ’s book of instructions , but the lure of social media can be all too tempting . Thus , courts levy penalties on juryman whoare unable to follow the rule on attempt out info or discuss the causa .
These penalty include take for jurors in disrespect of court , taking their equipment , or imposing segregation where jurors are put up in hotelsaway from their family and devices . The coarse theme with all penalties is that once imposed , they make citizen less inclined to want to serve as jurors .
Question Time
Some legal expert believe that if jurywoman are give sufficient information about the typeface , they will be less disposed to violate court rules and go online to look for information or discuss the event . One way to amend the appropriate flow of information to juror isto allow them to ask questions during test .
Finally , there are calls to change panel instructions to fit the forward-looking times . Since today ’s jurors are so receptive to learning entropy online , they have to be told why practices that they on a regular basis use are prohibited while on panel responsibility .
The panel , throughout its approximately 400 - year chronicle in America , has witness many change in society . Through each one , the jury has accommodate and exist . Thus , I believe it is extremely likely the jury will endure the storm of the digital historic period .
This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license . you may find out the original article here .
Thaddeus Hoffmeister is a law professor at the University of Dayton and a exercise lawyer .
